Quote:
Originally Posted by chapmaja
I will just end my participation in this discussion with this. There is not way I am calling interfence on a batter (or batter runner if you wish)...
|
It's not as I wish. It's the rule. That's the point we're trying to get across to you. Once again, you cannot use 7-4-4 in this particular case to make your ruling, because it's not appropriate.
You keep clouding the issue by arguing you will not call interference. Fine. But if you're going to use a rule to back up your argument, use the right rule. 7-4-4 is not the right rule.
The right rule is 8-2-6. It says a batter-runner is out when she interferes with an uncaught third strike. It says nothing about the defense's failure to catch the pitch. It says nothing about where the ball ends up. It says nothing about what the batter-runner does (or fails to do). And it says nothing about intent. All you have to go with is the definition of interference. If the batter-runner hinders the catcher from making a play, either on the batter-runner or another runner, after the catcher fails to catch the third strike, then you must rule the batter-runner out.
Chances are that there won't be any hindrance here since the ball simply bounced off the batter-runner's leg. More than likely, the ball stays close by so that the catcher can pick it up and make the play. That's why this situation is different than the case book scenario where the batter-runner kicks the ball away, preventing the catcher from making any play.
So you could rule there is no interference. That's your judgment. And you would use 8-2-6 to make your point. You would not use 7-4-4.